|
24/10/2011
|
FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS
FILED
|
|
Document Lodged: Originating Application by
Prospective Applicant for Order for Discovery - Form 14 - Rule
7.24(1) [ Rule
7.23 matter]
File Number: QUD394/2011
File Title: Gordon Craven v Department of Human Services Trading
As Centrelink
District Registry: QUEENSLAND REGISTRY - FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Reason for Listing: Directions
Time and date for hearing: 02/12/2011, 09/12/2011 9:30
AM
Place: Court No. 3, Level 7, Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts
Building Level 6, 119 North Quay, Brisbane
ORDER SOUGHT (per the Application)
[Pursuant to] : Rule 7.23 for an order that the Department of
Human Services trading as Centrelink give discovery to the Prospective
Applicant of security footage of the Prospective Applicant’s
visit to the Prospective Respondent’s office at Noosaville
QLD on Thursday 13 October 2011.
ORIGINATING
APPLICATION for DISCOVERY
of VIDEO FOOTAGE |
"....At that appointment, I was taken
by complete shock and surprise in that I had to endure false
accusations with threatening, grossly intimidating, bullying
and vigorously aggressive conduct by an employee of the Prospective
Respondent in his decision making capacity (as he advised me).....
I believe that the impact, severity and physical activity of
the conduct was an attempt (contrary to Commonwealth
Public Servants Code of Conduct) to provoke me into losing
my self control and defending myself against imminent violence
as I did in fact become in fear of imminent violence. I also
consider this conduct to be a civil assault upon me....."
SUPPORTING
AFFIDAVIT
|
|
Documents were faxed and emailed to various
contacts of the Prospective Respondent (Centrelink)
|
|
|
|
Centrelink Noosaville manager Mr. Alan Davidson,
telephoned the Prospective Applicant confirming that he had
retained the video footage being sought and requested the electronic
copy of court documents filed in the Court to be emailed to
him. The documents were subsequently emailed. The manager was
requested to acknowledge personal service by return email, thus
satisfying the Court Rules for Personal Service.
|
|
|
Letter by emai to Mr. Alan Davidson, Centrelink
LETTER-2Nov2011.PDF
copied to Hank Jongen :
• Further request for acknowledgment of personal service;
• Notice of potential further particulars of aggravated
damages;
• Court Notice of change of Court date listing from 2 December
2011 to 9 December 2011. |
|
|
Service has been effected.
According to the COMMONWEALTH
COURTS PORTAL, Department of Human Services Trading As Centrelink
has filed an Address for Service as, Sparke Helmore, GPO Box
10220, BRISBANE 4000
Lawyers for Department of Human Services Trading As Centrelink
are, Sparke
Helmore Level 8, 10 Eagle Street, Brisbane QLD 4000 |
|
|
| Prior to filing the ORIGINATING
APPLICATION for DISCOVERY of VIDEO FOOTAGE, on 14
October 2011 the Applicant had lodged a Freedom of Information
request for his Centrelink File and the Video Footage.
Despite the apparant simplicity of seeking personal
information on oneself, the Dept.
of Human Services (DHS) have advised that it requires
60 DAYS to process the request for
the following reasons : |
|
•
|
the request involves documents of a sensitive
nature and will require extensive decision making time |
|
•
|
the document retrieval process is complex
due to the need for stakeholders to convert the document
into an appropriate medium |
|
•
|
the decision making process is complex
due to the need for third party consultation and consideration
of appropriate redactions |
 |
The extension of time [from 30
to 60 days] will allow well-reasoned and better managed
decision-making by DHS in this situation. |
|
|
|
Letter to Sparke
Helmore requesting full name and address of Centrelink Noosaville
employee "Craig" in order to facilitate his proper
description as a Respondent in the upcoming Application to the
Federal Court, once the current Application for video footage
is finalised. sparke27-11-11.PDF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsequent to the notice that
the video footage was to be refused, on 29 November the Director
of FOI for Human Services (Ms. Kerrie Terry) was emailed a letter
requesting further information regarding this astonishing statement
made in the digital era of 2011....
"Pursuant to subsection 24AB(3)
of the Act, please would you provide full details of the :
(a) format of the video footage;
(b) file extension of the video footage (e.g., .MPEG .AVI)
(c) security coding of the video footage;
(d) name of software that would be used to redact and/or edit
the footage;
(e) any other relevant technical details." |
|
|
| HEY PRESTO.... after 53 days since
the date of FOI application and 2 DAYS before the Federal Court
hearing a letter is received that the video camera manufacture
has provided software to enable redaction within a reasonable
timeframe. LETTER IS HERE
|
|
|
| At the hearing on Friday 9 December 2011 Justice
Logan was (perhaps understandably) unimpressed that the
matter was before the court when the video was to be produced
under FOI. As such tricky Centrelink despite
initially refusing to confirm that the video even existed
and then giving notice of refusal to its access, had successfully
hi-jacked the proceedings just 2 days before the hearing. |
|
COURT ORDERS :
|
The case is adjourned to 16 December 2011
at not before 10.30 am.
The costs of today are reserved. |
| Commonwealth Courts Portal : |
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD394/2011/actions |
| In effect the judge had provided 7 days to
discontinue the proceedings and avoid a costs order. |
|
|
12/12/2011
|
DOCUMENT FILED
|
|
|
|
|
16/12/2011
|
INTERIM COMMENT
|
|
Well well well,
it's now Friday 16 December 2011 at 7-20pm. The Centrelink FOI
personal file arrived a couple of days ago (with lots of things
missing & volumes of duplication), BUT the CCTV VIDEO, or
the decision to release it (despite Federal Court proceedings
being discontinued in anticipation), has NOT been received, DESPITE
Ms. Kerrie Terry Director of FOI for Human Services making a big
deal about the statutory timeframe extension to 60
days for the FOI decision/production, which has now expired
on 13/12/11 HER LETTER IS
HERE
|
•
|
Perhaps one could be forgiven (in the real
world) for thinking that there is some sort of conspiracy
to conceal evidence and the truth, let's see what happens..... |
|
•
|
Is Centrelink fundamentally corrupt ??...
a bureaucracy that sets its own laws ??... and covers up
its despotic mistakes ??... let's see what happens.....
|
|
•
|
Stay tuned... the bigger
hole they dig.... the harder it is to climb out of..... |
|
|
|
| Because I have had no notice of
a decision regarding the CCTV VIDEO and the statutory deadline
was 13/12/11 it is deemed by legislation to be refused. The
ignorant bastards don't even have the decency to let you
know of the refusal or provide reasons why. Consequently an appeal
has been lodged with the Office
of the Australian Information Commissioner. |
|
|
RE : "an
appeal has been lodged with the Office
of the Australian Information Commissioner."
Well that seemed to have worked, the video has arrived. Poorest
quality video the publisher has ever encountered and it's not
from the camera that captured the incident but a camera that partially
captured it. It's not worth publishing because it is so crappy,
however there were tiny bits of value that confirms the recollection
of the publisher, who considers that he has been assaulted and
been the the victim of an intentional infliction of emotional
distress a further actionable tort together with civil
assault. As such it is expected that the video from the relevant
camera (from a multitude of cameras) will be produced to the court
(under its discovery process) after the publisher files the substantive
proceedings, and for actions and relief that includes:
• Declarations
• Orders
• Injunctive Relief
• Misfeasance in Public Office
• Judicial Review of Conduct
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
• Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
• Civil Assault
• Attempted Extrinsic or Collateral Fraud (cover up)
• Damages / Nominal Damages
• Aggravated Damages
• Exemplary Damages (to charity) |
|
|
| After taking legal advice from the excellent
services of the Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing
House (QPILCH),
it was discovered that "CONDUCT" in the
context of a Judicial Review, refers specifically to procedures
followed by a public servant, rather than the public servant
acting like an arsehole, i.e., the Federal Court does not
review offensive behavior of a public servant in a purported
decision making process. Consequently the remedial procedure
being embarked on has been revised to below: |
|
1.
|
The initial reason for the saga which was
started in May 2011 by a Centrelink Complex Assessment Officer
(Margaret Heath) in Toowoomba deciding that legitimate business
expenses of a business could not be offset against the business
income, is now being persued by way of the Centrelink statutory
review process which can end up being finalised in the Federal
Court by way of appeals. Interestingly, for in excess of
6 months, Centrelink refused to provide the statutory and
judicial authority for its decision, however that authority
has now been provided by QPILCH
and it has now become clear how Centrelink has misconstrued
information provided to it in order to make a clearly wrong
decision. |
|
2.
|
Remedy of the offensive conduct by Centrelink
public servant "Craig" (as per above THE CRAIG
MELTDOWN) which was sparked by a simple request for progress
of the provision of legal authority for the above decision
at 1, is being commenced by way of the statutory pre-court
procedures (prior to filing in the District Court of Queensland)
as required by the Personal
Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld). |
|
3.
|
Since it is also contended that the Centrelink
Office Manager (Alan Davidson) at Noosaville, inititated
a cover up of the "Craig" incident by blaming
the Applicant (publisher) and making a decision without
basis affecting the Applicant, that decision is now also
the subject of the Centrelink statutory review process which
can also end up being finalised in the Federal Court by
way of appeals. |
|
4.
|
As the statutory pre-court procedure requires
the full name and address of the "person that caused
the incident", inquiries have been made to Centrelink
to ascertain the full name and address of the offensive
public servant currently known as "Craig", (AKA
NumbNuts). |
|
|
12/03/2012
|
UPDATE OF COVER UP
|
|
Well as usual there
is the law that the peasants have to obey, which the bureaucrats
can ignore with impunity.
An FOI application was filed to find the correct name and address
of Craig NumbNuts. A letter dated 8 Feb 2012 from Centrelink (signed
for K. Terry) acknowledged receipt of the application on 6 Feb
2012 stating that the statutory period of 30 days began on 6 Feb
2012.
 GIVING
YOU OPTIONS
It is now 12 March 2012 and no further correspondence has been
received. ONCE AGAIN the ignorant bastards
contravene Commonwealth legislation and don't even have the common
decency to let you know what is going on.
So... its back to the Office
of the Australian Information Commissioner to lodge a complaint.
It just galls me to see this level of cultural belligerence from
the huge Centrelink bureaucracy that would blame their customers
for bringing this country down, when they themselves suck the
life out of it with their overpaid and unproductive ineptitude
and cover-ups. The hindrance to getting to the truth could almost
be described as perverting the course of justice, however getting
a judge to agree is a tall mountain to climb. |
|
16/03/2012
|
UPDATE OF COVER UP
|
|
| A letter received today 16/03/2012
from Centrelink (8 days after the FOI statutory period of 30 days
had ended), essentially says that Centrelink has given itself
and extended period of time to process the FOI request which is
now 60 days instead of 30 days. The reason given it that Centrelink
has to consult with its employee Craig NumbNuts to see if he objects
to his name and address being released. Oh yes....
you bet.... Centrelink needs all of the 60 days to do that!!! |
|
11/04/2012
|
UPDATE OF COVER UP
|
|
Well well after 60 days of FOI bullshit......
Mr. Craig Numbnuts must have decided that he objects to having
his name and address being released to me, when as a Centrelink
public servant he threatened me at Noosaville by uttering the
following words into my face :
• “I will fix you”;
• “Believe me, I can and I will make it my business
to fix you”
The excuse provided by Department of Human Services FOI (Surfers
Paradise Qld branch, AKA Centrelink), is that their employee would
suffer a substantial adverse effect on his management or assessment
of personnel by the Commonwealth.
EDITORS NOTE : That's why the FOI was made... to reign
in this prick!!
It seems that Mr. Numbnuts doesn't actually have
any balls at all... to go numb. |
|
14/06/2012
|
documents filed / step / event
|
|
|
It appears NumbNuts has been allowed by Centrelink to go ferel
in his pursuit of his threat to
"make it his business to fix me".
Within the recent period of the last 45 days there has been 4
(four) serial requests for business documents to be provided to
Centrelink which are simply duplications of the original documents
already supplied + serial notices that Centrelink have NOT recieved
the documents + the usual threat of disconnection if the documents
are not supplied.
Well Centrelink & others.... let me tell you though this forum,
that you are digging a huge hole that I hope to make sure that
YOU can never climb out of!!
THE Form 1 (Part 1) of the Personal
Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) is to be lodged within
the next few days. You (Centrelink. the Secretary and NumbNuts)
are required by the legislation to respond (as much as you may
dislike that prospect), from which it will be decided whether
you are to provide relief, otherwise the matter is to proceed
to a Queensland a Court of appropriate jurisdiction. |
|
28/06/2012
|
DOCUMENTS SERVED -
CRAIG'S ATTEMPT TO AVOID SERVICE
|
|
| Having the first part of the
NOTICE OF CLAIM
being completed, today was the day to serve it on the Respondents.
Armed with the NOTICE
OF CLAIM and a covering letter to GRAIG C/- the Manager (as
I did not think CRAIG would be there), I proceeded to Centrelink
Noosaville. On arrival at the Centrelink office there was a large
queue. A person I recognised as CRAIG NumbNuts was sitting right
down the rear of the office. I walked up to him and loudly said
“Craig” to which he looked at me and replied NO, (he
did not have his GRAIG badge on) I then said, “you are not
Craig?” to which he again replied NO. The Centrelink staff
started to converge telling me to get out to the front counter.
I pointed to CRAIG and said to them "is this CRAIG"
to which there was no answer. Then a person who I recognised as
the Office Manager arrived to assist me to leave, I gave the original
NOTICE OF CLAIM
together with the covering letter to him and said to him “you
are served”. |
|
29/07/2012
|
COMCOVER RESPONDS
- COMCOVER CAN'T COUNT
|
|
|
Letter from Comcover wrongly alleging
non-compliance with a 9 month statutory period for lodging
a claim + claiming consequential prejudice.
|
|
|
Letter of Claimant's response.
|
|
|
|
24/08/2012
|
COMCOVER CAN'T CUT
IT
|
|
|
Complainant lodges further and better
particulars of claim as required by Comcover, whilst Comcover
fails to respond to previous correspondence from complainant
per 29/07/2012 above.
|
PRIVATE
|
|
|
|
|
|
date
|
documents filed / step / event
|
|
| |
HankJongen.com
: 
COPY OF LETTER 
GIVING
YOU OPTIONS
BEWARE HONESTY -